Let's Look At How Lazy "Journalists" Heather Caygle And Laura Barrón-López Misled Politico Readers By Stuffing A Story On Cheri Bustos Full Of DCCC Talking Points

Does anyone outside of Bustos' office seriously think that slogan won the Democrats back the House?

Politico ace reporters Heather Caygle And Laura Barrón-López should go to journalism school-- or somehow get it through their heads that reporters aren't actually supposed to be mindless cheerleaders for the establishment.

"Cheri Bustos," they wrote of the woman quickly turning herself into her party's next Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "isn’t afraid of the insurgent left." That's so cute! I wonder if Bustos paid extra for that. "The chairwoman of House Democrats’ campaign arm has found herself in a very messy-- and public-- spat with progressives over the past week and a half. But the Midwestern moderate"-- ah, yes, Politico's favorite put down of progressives: calling corrupt conservatives like Blue Dog Bustos a "moderate," the most admired political term among American voters. What makes Bustos a moderate? That she votes with Republicans? That she opposes the most popular Democratic initiatives of the time-- like Medicare-For-All, free state colleges, the $15 minimum wage, and the Green New Dream? In Beltway conservative circles, opposing those initiatives is what makes someone "serious" and, apparently, "moderate."

Bustos, they continued "is refusing to budge, despite drawing ire from prominent progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has encouraged her millions of social media followers to halt donations to the campaign committee in retaliation." [Notice how the boogey man was just created in the narrative, the boogey man who the "moderate" shall vanquish.] Let's see what can they do to make Bustos sound all-American and heroic?

“I’m pretty transparent, I don’t try to do things behind people’s back, I don’t try to mislead,” Bustos said in a brief interview Wednesday, when asked about the intraparty conflict.

At issue is a new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee policy that prohibits Democratic consultants and vendors from working for a primary challenger to a sitting incumbent if they want the lucrative business of the DCCC.

That stance was considered an unwritten rule for the party, but Bustos decided to codify it at a time when the prospect of left-wing primary challenges looms large among House Democrats.

Despite the outcry from some progressives, many Democrats have rallied behind Bustos-- approaching her on the floor and privately commending her for being willing to confront the left wing of the caucus when others have cowered, fearful of becoming the Twitter target du jour.

Really? Has AOC been bullying Democrats on Twitter, Politico? Who? I must have slept late that day. Who has been a "Twitter target du jour?" I mean other than people hated by Trump? Who? Show me.

Bustos has indeed become a public punching bag for progressives, absorbing blows for moderate and vulnerable Democrats. In return, Bustos has privately encouraged members to voice their support for her actions-- particularly progressives who back the policy-- according to multiple sources.

“We don’t have time for games, we don’t have time for hugs and kisses,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in an interview, praising Bustos for taking a hard line to protect the party’s incumbents ahead of a difficult 2020 campaign.

The episode underscores Bustos’ approach to the job as DCCC chairwoman amid an ideological clash that has defined the early months of the new Democratic majority. She is the first line of defense in Democrat’s battle to hold onto the House, tasked with protecting more than two dozen seats in districts won by President Donald Trump, including her own.

Her sometimes blunt attitude is a dramatic departure from previous DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luján, who is known on Capitol Hill for being nonconfrontational and eager to please. But Bustos’ style is one several members said is needed in this moment, as Democrats wage war against Trump and hope to not only hold the House but flip the Senate and White House next year.

“What you see is what you get,” said Lacy Clay (D-MO), who fended off a liberal primary challenger last cycle. “She’s up front about her positions and you have to respect that.”

Added Clay: “She’s brought a new perspective and sometimes you need to change the way you do things around here.”

Lacy Clay pretends to be a progressive but he's a grotesquely corrupt sack, who will always be facing primaries because of how he treats his constituents. It's only a matter of time before some lands the right blow at the right time. He's perfect for Bustos. Couldn't be better.

But other lawmakers, even the ones defending Bustos, have privately questioned her move to “poke the bear,” as one member described her swipe at the left, and put in writing a rule that was essentially followed by the campaign committee anyway.

Three months into her tenure as DCCC chairwoman, Bustos said she wanted to lay down the “ground rules” and follow through on a commitment she made when she ran for the post to do everything she could to protect incumbents. Some lawmakers even specifically raised the vendor issue last fall during the DCCC race, according to one Democratic source. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other members of leadership have also defended the move.

“We’ve got a policy that the caucus supports, the leadership supports, and it plays the long game,” Bustos said Wednesday when asked if she would reverse course on the new vendor policy. “That’s where things are right now.”

But the issue has clearly touched a nerve within the caucus.

Democrats in the centrist New Democratic faction and more conservative Blue Dog Caucus are pleased with the Illinois Democrat’s show of force against primary challenges. But, tellingly, many did not want to publicly comment on the change for fear of escalating what has the potential to become a civil war.

Progressive Caucus leaders Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal have vocally condemned the policy change, calling it “undemocratic” and an effort to “blackball” talented consultants. Donors warned the two leaders that they would stop contributing to DCCC if the policy remained in place.

In a heated meeting with Bustos last week, Pocan, Jayapal and Ro Khanna of California voiced their displeasure. Bustos stood her ground and appeared unwilling to change course. Khanna came out of the meeting angry, vowing to fight the policy until it was nixed.

But in the days since, progressives have shifted tactics, saying they want to keep the debate private, with Khanna saying, “these things take time.”

“We’re having ongoing conversations, but dealing with it in the public is counterproductive,” Pocan said, when asked whether Ocasio-Cortez’s tweets to her 3.8 million followers was helpful. “I’m dealing with it in the responsible way to make sure we get rid of the policy and that means dealing with it within the family.”

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez told Politico on Wednesday she doesn’t have any additional plans to blast the DCCC on Twitter and said she’s “not sure” whether she is going to pay her member dues to the campaign arm.

Though Pocan and Jayapal insist the conversations are not over with Bustos are not over, the three lawmakers appear to be talking past one another. Bustos said she would ask progressives to “play the long game.”

“If we’re going to be successful as Democrats, and going into 2020 with a very, very fragile majority, we got to be on the same team,” said Bustos, adding that the new policy ensures the DCCC will spend “every cent we can to hang on to our majority and not work against ourselves.”

While running for the DCCC post, Bustos pitched herself as a Democrat with a unique ability to appeal to Trump voters while not shying away from taking on the president. The fourth-term lawmaker hails from a rural district in the northwestern corner of Illinois that Trump won in 2016 even as it reelected Bustos by 20 points.

Only a Democrat as tragically lacking as Hillary could lose that district, which was gerrymandered by the Democratic-controlled state legislature so that Bustos would never lose her seat. Hillary's 1 point loss to Trump brought the PVI down to D+3, hardly the red district the Bustos cheering squad makes it out to be. Obama beat McCain there by a whopping 60.0% to 38.5% and then beat Romney 57.6-40.6%. Last year Bustos beat Republican Bill Fawell 142,659 (62.1%) to 87,090 (37.9%). Politico-- and most House Dems-- are too dull-witted to look into the bullshit Bustos has spewed about her epic battle to win the hicks in Trump country. IL-17 may not have embraced Hillary, but this district was drawn for Democrats, and very successfully so. You want Bustos to teach you how to win in a red district? All she can tell you is to make sure your state legislature gerrymanders the Republicans out of it and into IL-18, where the PVI suddenly shot up from a stable R+11 to a blood red R+16. Easy as pie. Now elect me DCCC chair too.

A former journalist and public relations executive, Bustos first impressed other Democrats as a co-chair of the caucus’ communications arm last cycle. She, along with Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York and David Cicilline of Rhode Island, helped craft Democrats’ winning message-- encouraging members to focus on economic issues instead of running solely on an anti-Trump platform.

It worked. Democrats swept back into power in the House, flipping more than 40 GOP seats and electing the largest Democratic freshman class in four decades.

Hey, what can I say? If I was editing Politico, Caygle and Barrón-López would have been looking for new jobs 5 minutes after handing in those 3 sentences of patently ridiculous crap that is either stupendously naive or professionally dishonest. How about something to follow it up with-- like people clamoring for Bustos to lead them to the promised land?

Now Bustos is mentioned as a potential future leader of the caucus when Pelosi and her longtime deputies move on. But much of her future in Democratic leadership hinges on how she navigates her role as DCCC chairwoman-- and whether Democrats hold the House.

A natural and constant friction exists between the DCCC and lawmakers, no matter who holds the post. Members have to pay dues to the campaign arm-- fees that Bustos raised across the board after taking the job. And the DCCC has been criticized for not doing more to defend incumbents from primary challenges in the past.

But Bustos is steering the ship at a unique time: Trump is in the White House, Democrats hold the House majority for the first time in nearly a decade, and there is a new, combative progressive wing on bullhorns as dozens of newly elected moderates fend off claims that they’re “radical socialists.”

“We have 50 different groups, and all of whom are screaming for attention from the DCCC and most of them believe that the DCCC is not responding sufficiently to their desires and requests, which is why I’d never want the job,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO.), adding of Bustos, “I’ve not experienced her wavering on anything, even the difficult and controversial issues.”

An actual journalist, Alex Kotch, in a piece-- As it Works to Stifle Primary Challengers, DCCC Takes More Money from Corporate Lobbyists-- for a nice, more trustworthy publication than Politico, Sludge reports on issues that challenge the DCCC, rather than by licking it's proverbial ass. He makes the case that corrupt conservatives like Bustos can alienate the DCCC (and Democratic Party?) from grassroots activists, because she, the committee and the party's establishment are in the process of selling themselves to Steny Hoyer's amigos on K Street. What the lobbyists expect in exchange will continue the Democratic Party's downward spiral. The DCCC, he wrote "is relying more heavily on corporate lobbyists to collect checks. Lobbyists whose clients include health care, oil, gas, and coal interests, raised almost $440,000 for the DCCC in January and February, Federal Election Commission records show. Many of their clients oppose progressive priorities like a Medicare for All health-care system or a Green New Deal to mitigate climate change."

The DCCC refused to answer questions about it but Ro Khanna did: "I do not take money from corporations, PACs, or lobbyists. The DCCC should not, either."

In February 2016, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) quietly reversed an Obama-era ban on contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Lobbyists raised roughly $100,000 for the DCCC in 2015-16, before raising close to $1.9 million for the committee during the 2018 election cycle. This year, led by centrist Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois, the DCCC has already received almost as much money via donations bundled by corporate lobbyists than in all of 2017.

While most of the Democratic presidential primary candidates support Medicare for All, and 108 House Democrats have signed on to single-payer legislation, the party’s congressional leaders have resisted calls for sweeping changes to the nation’s health-care system. They have instead pushed for improvements to the Affordable Care Act-- the 2010 health-care law-- and lower drug prices.

I don't think Kotch realized it, but when he was reporting on former California Congressman Vic Fazio, now a notorious lobbyist, he was reporting about not just a former congressman but on a pivotal former chairman of the DCCC. Fazio took over as DCCC head in January of 1991 and served 2 terms until January of 1995. Fazio sucked as DCCC chair. Despite Clinton beating George HW Bush during his first term, the House Dems lost a net of 9 seats. Fazio was rewarded for being so bad with another term, a DCCC tradition. Fazio's second term as DCCC was one of the worst in history for the Democrats and he managed to steer the party into a 5 million vote shortfall, a net loss of 54 seats and the loss of the House. An utter failure, Fazio works for the largest, one of the most notoriously corrupt, lobbying firms in history, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Fazio's clients include Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the nation’s largest pharmaceutical trade association and Gilead Sciences, a company that has earned billions of dollars from sales of a drug based on government research to prevent HIV infection. So far this cycle-- which is just getting started-- Fazio has raised $73,500 for the DCCC.

Kotch also noted that "While the DCCC is trying to keep its vendors from aiding primary challengers, there has been no such push to prevent its consultants from advising corporate clients, whose goals are" [supposedly or formerly or partially or in a make believe land far away from the Beltway] "often at odds with much of the Democratic Party [albeit not Cheri Bustos' part]. Global Strategy Group, which conducted polls for the DCCC last cycle, has worked with the health insurance lobby AHIP. The firm was also a consultant for the coalition that successfully defeated a single-payer ballot measure in Colorado in 2016." For members like Cheri Bustos, that's a a plus, not a flaw. Similarly, another shady firm progressives are WAY better off without, "SKDKnickerbocker, a media firm that’s worked for the DCCC, has provided public affairs support for controversial corporate mergers like the one between AT&T and Time Warner."

Common Dreams also covered the story better than Politico. Eoin Higgins seems more... like a reporter than the Caygle And Barrón-López. Apparently he wrote his story, a bit of a critique of the dreck Caygle And Barrón-López puked up, without any help from the DCCC comms department. "Framing the vendor policy as a way to ensure the Democrats remain in power in the House moving forward," wrote Higgins, "Bustos said the party needed to concentrate on not working against one another. 'If we're going to be successful as Democrats, and going into 2020 with a very, very fragile majority, [we've] got to be on the same team,' said Bustos."

Rep.  Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, broke her public silence on the vendor decision Thursday morning in response to Bustos's interview with Politico. 'It is not playing games for the Democratic party to be inclusive of all its members perspectives,' Jayapal said in a tweet.  'I have refrained from commenting publicly on this issue until now, but I am extremely disappointed that there is no movement on this issue.' Jayapal also made the case that progressives represent a large section of the Democratic caucus overall and took issue with Bustos' characterizing the CPC as 'the far left.' Gee, it made perfect sense in Politico world.

Higgins also figured that policy concerns are part of this story as well. Imagine that! "The imbroglio over the DCCC's move to undermine primary challenges is not the only evidence of tension between the progressive and centrist factions with the party. On Thursday, Common Dreams reported on another point of conflict between the two sides: attempts by the Democratic Party's centrist wing to water down a $15 minimum wage proposal. 'Being in Congress means leading, and we need to lead on minimum wage,' said Jayapal."